Talk:Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe

Folding vicariate article into this page

After some discussion on the talk page of the vicariate article, I've folded the text from that article into a subsection of this main Exarchate entry. As was discussed there, this lets us prevent an unnecessary multiplication of pages, and also sorts out the problem of heading an entry on the Vicariate (i.e. as a subset of the Exarchate, we don't have to have an article with the fantastically long title: "Episcopal Vicariate of Great Britain and Ireland (Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe, Patriarchate of Constantinople)"). —Antonios Aigyptos^talk 14:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've reworked the text a bit to make the whole article more coherent, and not as much a piecemeal of the former articles. I've also corrected pointers to the Vicariate article around the Wiki system, so they point to its new location as a subsection of this article. We should be ready to convert the old article to a redirect soon. —Antonios Aigyptos^talk 18:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Updating to current status, removing "needs experts" tag

I've updated this article to bring it up to speed with current events. I've also removed the "this article is in need of an expert" tag, since it is now thoroughly footnoted by many contributors. —Antonios Aigyptos^talk 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nature of recent updates

My recent update to this page (yesterday) was removed by Atrebatus (81.145.241.7) and replaced with a simple statement that the Moscow Patriarchate has canonically released Bishop Basil. This is an unreasonable glossing-over of what is in fact a far more complex situation, which I've tried to lay out in my updates. It is not polemic to note accurate details of a situation, and it's not in line with Wikipedia's attempts to give full details on material to just gloss over complicated issues.

I've restored the text. If there are inaccuracies within it, all editors are welcome to contribute editions/revisions as usual. But don't simply delete material because one does not like its contents.

—Antonios Aigyptos^talk 13:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Further details:'

To give context to my comment just above this, the following was posted on my User Talk page by Atrebatus:

I have removed your recent text which I am afraid is nothing more than polemic. The basic point is that the MP has now accepted +Basil's current status, however reluctantly, and it is of no help to continue to trawl over what you claim is "illegality" but which is reality was a successful appeal to Constantinople under the Canons of the Church. Atrebatus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.7 (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

That gives the context for my notes above. As an addendum, the language of "illegality" is not my own, but is a quotation of comments by one of the bishops involved, and is both referenced and a citation is given. —Antonios Aigyptos^talk 13:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few language refinements to the section on the Vicariate, to preserve a more neutral POV in line with Wikipedia's standards. —Antonios Aigyptos^talk 13:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edits on May 9, 2007

The edits made on May 9 by User:Dalbury were entirely inappropriate: under the guise of removing unsourced statements, the article was essentially re-written to a bias entirely in favor of one side of the disputed questions. I've reverted the article to its version before this edit. As for sources that are no longer available in footnotes, a better attempt should be made to locate these documents before accurately-cited Wikipedia articles are edited based on them having moved online. In any case, the kind of rewriting from this edit was far more than just sourcing notes. —Antonios Aigyptos^talk 14:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the links are in fact still available on the Diocese of Sourozh's website. —Antonios Aigyptos^talk 15:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have again removed unsourced material expressing a strong point of view, and prejudicial to one of the parties in this dispute. As this material concerns a living person, the provisions of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons apply. Do not add this material back without citing explicit reliable published sources. -- Donald Albury 14:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have undone some of Donald's revisions, which - again - express their own bias and twist on the events of the article under the guise of focusing on the sources. However, I'm taking to heart Atrebatus' (false) claim that the notice on the Exarchate's website regarding Moscow recognising the validity of the Vicariate did not exists, only in as much as it cannot at the moment be confirmed by a link to a cached version. So I'm removing the following text:

"Signs of misleading information from the Vicariate (charges of distributing misinformation having been levelled against it since the earliest days of its foundation, particularly with respect to its websites) were, nonetheless, apparent in its initial reporting of the Moscow Patriarchate's decision. In the days following 27 March, the Vicariate ran a notice on its website[1] claiming that in Moscow's release of Bishop Basil from its jurisdiction, it 'recognised the validity of the Vicariate', a claim that had no foundation in the decision of the Patriarchate or the comments of Metropolitan Kyrill, neither of which mentioned the Vicariate. This reporting was seen by some as a deliberate attempt to reframe the decision's criticism of Bishop Basil's illegal move in terms positive to the Vicariate. The notice was later removed from the Vicariate's website, though not in a regular manner: it remains absent from the site's archive of 'events, documents, press releases etc since April 2006'[2], in which it does not appear, despite having been posted on the news index for much of April 2007."

If I can locate a cached version of that site, this can be restored; but without it I agree that it cannot remain in the article.

However, Donald's attempt to change this text:

In a statement posted on the website of Bishop Basil's parish in Oxford, he describes the decision of the Moscow Patriarchate as meaning "that they have accepted the situation as it is, i.e. that I am a bishop in good standing within the Ecumenical Patriarchate."[3] This statement has also been considered misleading by some, since the Moscow Patriarchate did not recognize the validity of the Bishop's situation, but instead instead decried it as explicitly 'illegal'. That situation was changed by granting him release, and only then did the Patriarchate consider it possible for communion to be restored.

To this:

In a statement posted on the website of Bishop Basil's parish in Oxford, he describes the decision of the Moscow Patriarchate as meaning "that they have accepted the situation as it is, i.e. that I am a bishop in good standing within the Ecumenical Patriarchate."[4]

is deeply misleading and misrepresentative. The commentary on the language of illegality is a sourced quotation and explanation. I'm adding this section back in; and to make this clearer I will repeat the reference [5] again at this location, which is a link to the language in a press reporting.

It's inappropriate for an editor of this article to insist on removing legitimate challenges to that statement on the website, given citable documentary evidence that they are inaccurate. —Antonios Aigyptos^talk 15:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have no dog in this fight. I do not care who is in the right or wrong here. I do care that articles in Wikipedia be properly sourced, and particularly any material dealing with living persons be fully sourced from reliable published sources. I see this article as having way too much detail, apparantly due to two sides trying to win some public relations battle. I came to this article because of a complaint at OTRS, and I found an article that apparantly is being battled over by partisan editors. I thoroughly resent the implication that I am trying the slant the article. I assure you that I am only trying to remove unsourced material about a living person. -- Donald Albury 19:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge tag

I tagged this article and the article Russian Orthodox Exarchate in Western Europe for merge, as they are clear duplicates. I pointed the merge here, as it's the older article, but I have no opinion on which should be the final title. It's just a clear case of needing a merge. I would be bold, but I don't know much about the subject and wouldn't want to leave out anything important. Especially since the British deanery article has already been merged here. oknazevad (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that the articles must be merged. I think that the shorter title is fine (i.e., Russian Orthodox Exarchate in Western Europe), but perhaps the official title used on their website is appropriate (Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe) Paterakis (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Merged August 15, 2014 Natg 19 (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the current title Russian Orthodox Exarchate in Western Europe gives the impression that it is a jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church, which it is not. I'll follow the above suggestion and rename it to the title used by the Exarchate itself, Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe. Place Clichy (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)